Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.

Need help taking your debate skills to the next level? Click here to visit my Debate Academy to get personal coaching, purchase briefs, and more. Let’s work together to make you the best.

Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council.

This is an interesting resolution. Ultimately, it’s not one which has huge impact points one or the other, but it’s interesting to consider how the UN should make decisions. To that point, it’s important to remember that that is the central question of the resolution. How does the UN determine what it should do?

Definitions

You don’t really need to define anything for this resolution as all the terms are pretty self explanatory. What you do need to make sure you do, though, is have a framework which explains how the UN should make its decisions. Then you need to apply that framework through your contentions to address the resolution.

Pro

1. India is a super power – Security council seats should be determined by a country’s influence on global security. India is a nation that has a dramatic influence on global security. Not only has it been involved in repeated military conflicts with Pakistan, but it’s geographic location in South Asia puts it right between China and the Middle East. It is a necessary cross through for trans-Asian trade and military movements.

2. Military strength and contributions – Few nations contribute more “peace keepers” to the UN than India does. Additionally, India is a nuclear power, which immediately puts it into contention for the security council seat. FDR’s original intent for the security council was to be a police force for the different regions of the world. South Asia and the Middle East lack a representative warden on the council. India is the best candidate for the seat.

**Note: I will make an additional point here that affirming the resolution doesn’t mean other countries should be excluded. You’ll get a lot of, “Why not Japan, Germany, or Brazil?” And you should be comfortable saying, “Sure, give them seats as well.” The same criteria apply to those countries too.

Con

1. The UN Security Council should be dissolved – This resolution affords a great opportunity for a counter plan or kritik (in PF, I know right?!). We can argue that the UNSC is an outdated body that might have made sense after WWII to address fears of another Hitler, but it is actually a barrier now that the political landscape has change. The allied empires are long gone, and though Russia and China might have helped the allies in WWII, their political growth has been dramatically opposed to democratic ideals. Ultimately, the result is that India should not be granted a permanent seat, nobody should. The UNSC should just go away.

2. India has a bad track record – India does not have a good record of security. Terrorist attacks, military conflicts, and even genocide are present within the country’s recent history. Seats are limited, so a country like Germany or Japan will be much better suited to take one of the permanent seats. While their histories may be similarly negative, they have made great strides and progress in changing, while India has not.

Like I said, ultimately this is a low impact theoretical discussion, but hopefully these points help you get started. Good luck!

even this website says so: A No. In Public Forum Debate, a plan or counterplan is defined by the NFL as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy.

The NFL rules say you’re allowed to offer generalized practical solutions. That’s what we mean when we talk about plans/counterplans. You’re not allowed to offer a detailed implementation plan, like in policy, which is different. Nothing in the post outlines a detailed implementation of anything.

Hey guys, I can appreciate that it might be fun to do things like this now, but spamming comments on someone else’s page is childish and pointless. I’ve created this place to help debaters with basic frameworks and ideas and create a place where debaters can engage with me and others to discuss the current topics. All you’re doing is unnecessarily interrupting that. I can delete your comments and block your emails, so you’re not accomplishing anything either. If your goal was to annoy me, though, then you’ve accomplished that. This website isn’t hurting you, so if it helps someone and they want to engage with the content, why do you feel compelled to be negative about that? What enjoyment does that bring you? And if it does make you happy to annoy other people and make their lives more difficult, then think about what that says about the kind of person you are. If you want to engage with me about the topic, feel free, but please stop spamming my blog.

This topic is not low impact. War and security are serious issues. UNSC has a huge impact on fighting terrorism, and other stuff. With India’s help they can fight these very serious problems. Even you talk about genocide and the bad stuff happening in India, and how with India’s influence the UNSC could get distracted. Innocent people dying isn’t a low impact.

I have a question. In your second Neg contention, you say that India has a bad track record, but can’t opponents state that India is a nuclear power (basically your second Aff contention). How should Neg refute this?

Keep it respectful, and check your arrogance. You don’t know everything, and your arguments aren’t that great. Genocide is not happening in India. And the existence of terrorist attacks doesn’t say anything about nuclear weapons.

You have a very surface level understanding of international politics. The UNSC has ultimately had very little impact on the actual actions of countries. The UN’s impotence when it comes to actual action is one of its biggest criticisms. It is difficult to warrant any argument that speculates on what will happen if India does or doesn’t join the UN.

Can we run nuclear proliferation on neg, saying that India tried to join the council by going nuclear, and if we let them do that, then we’re setting a bad example for other countries? We could talk about how this lead to a nuclear arms race with Pakistan. Other countries might try to go nuclear to join the council, if we let India get away with it.

I get these types of questions a lot. You have to listen to what your opponents actually say and the evidence/proof that they provide. Identify the flaws in their arguments and then attack them. Don’t just stop listening at the tag line and assume what they’re saying is true.

If the Affirmative side states that India has made many peacekeeping operations, the Negative side can state that the peacekeepers abuse many people. But what can the Affirmative side say against this refutation, if the Negative side has cards from a recent date?